DanSco wrote:My book arrived last night.I found a typo on page 23. The last sentence should start "Adjacent segments without...."

Good catch, as this is in a Willis quote which is probably the reasonwe missed it.

Magister22 wrote:Now the list of typos and other possible corrections:

1. On the bottom of page 20, there is this sentence: "By 1995 Willis had..." I believe that should be "By 1955 Willis had..."

I can't tell you how much we appreciate this review! One of the doctor reviewers caught this one, however, it was still present in what was to be the finally final version.

2. In the middle of page 28 there is this sentence: "Dr. Levy then found more than 650 studies form the scientific..." I think "form" should be "from."

This looks to be fixed.

3. On pp 36-37 there is a quote from Linus Pauling followed by "1986, 2006." Surely only the first date is correct and 2006 should be removed?

Think we are going to leave this alone

4. On page 92, about 2/3 of the way down, there is a sentence in which I think a well intended attempt at gender neutrality turned out badly: "The doctor would receive his or her annual payment when a family gives to him or her voucher." I know it's not politically correct these days to mention it but the rule in English is that the masculine form is used as the indefinite personal pronoun. So I think a lot of confusion could be avoided by rewriting the sentence as, "The doctor would receive his annual payment when a family gives him their voucher."

-- Magister22

The "editor" had already caught and fixed this one.

Now is the time. If any other reader had spotted anything, even the smallest error. We thank you!

Owen,I do have a question regarding the book itself. After some investigation it would seem the the book itself is only theoretical and not factual,nevertheless , even this being the case I would still like to read it.Again thanking you for your service,Yours faithfully.

David H.

Interesting, can you share where you found/read this about the book?

> I do have a question regarding the book itself. After some investigation it> would seem the the book itself is only theoretical and not factualIt is true that we cover the Vitamin C theory of heart disease as first proposed by Willis in the 1950s, and greatly expanded by Linus Pauling and Matthias Rath in the late 1980s. A theory that is covered no where else to my knowledge, expect perhaps Dr. Levy's STOP AMERICA'S #1 KILLER.

But not "factual"?! Unbelievable maybe. And that is why we used decade long case histories of REAL people, using their REAL names. These people can be contacted to verify their testimony. These cases are incredible, but most definitely factual.

Sorry I missed Mica's question. Lets see,Carol SmithRichard (from forum who I think must have passed away)Jeff FenlasonLes (from forum, who we haven't heard from in awhile)Gerald from Australiaseveral minor reports and thenSteve from Florida (from forum - who says the therapy didn't work for him)

The chapter became LONG. Carol Smith and Fenlason are almost ten years each.

I've noticed that those on Tower products are still alive. It is probably not only the formula, but the fact that taking 2 drinks daily (rather than a bunch of pills) helps with long-term compliance, while people taking loads of pills tend to slack off.

What Owen has done in his book is to show the history of how Pauling and Rath developed their unified theory, and then provided case studies to support the theory.

According to the rules of the scientific method, the Pauling-Rath theory stands until proven wrong. Their methods and experiments are specified in US Patent #5,278,189.Dr. Rath has also written extensively on his continued work which also continues to support their theory.

The reason that the theory is not tested or proven by NIH or acknowledged by the mainstream is strictly political as it would destroy the un-health care system in America and its cholesterol numbers game nonsense.

"Unless we put medical freedom into the constitution...medicine will organize into an undercover dictatorship..force people who wish doctors and treatment of their own choice to submit to only what..dictating outfit offers." Dr. Benjamin Rush

Ralph was able to post on July 7, but then, for some reason, this forum became locked? I think I have opened it up, not sure what happened.

FYI, There will be another national one hour radio broadcast covering the contents of the book at 10:00 p.m. CST next Thursday, Aug 14, 2008 on RENSE. This time I'll be on with Carol Smith and another "Carol". Both these women have first-hand experience with the Pauling therapy turning around their severe heart disease.

Ive just realised that in buying Tower A9 Im not supporting your costs. What is the equivalent product in your range. Is is Cardio C

Fergy

Thank you for the kind remarks about our book.

I have been a long time supporter of Tower and a distributor for them over the years, and I plan to get even more active in the future. I would stick with Tower.

Cardio-C is not anything like the Tower Ascorsine-9, which is a very complete Pauling-therapy product. Cardio-C is a simple preventive, while A-9 has most of Pauling and/or Dr. Levy's recommends. (The closest product the Foundation offers is our Ascorbade Longevity Drink, but there are reasons A-9 is better for Cardiovascular patients.)

I'm not sure what rationale one can use to explain why case studies are actually enough to conclude that Vitamin C is an effective treatment. Further, the book only covers few case studies. This will scream "bias" to every doctor since all of the studies covered are positive (there is no way there isn't a negative one).